manual_match

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'create and confirm a match', but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it permanently links or can be undone) or authentication needs. The existence of 'unmatch_transaction' suggests reversibility, but the description does not confirm.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the tool name and efficiently conveys the core action and context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the purpose and usage condition. It could mention what the tool returns or any confirmation, but it remains complete for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Transaction ID', 'Receipt ID'). The description adds no additional context beyond these names, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the purpose: manually create and confirm a match when no proposed match exists. It specifies the verb 'create and confirm', the resource 'match between transaction and receipt', and the condition 'when there is no proposed match', which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like confirm_match.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells when to use the tool (when no proposed match), implying it is for manual override. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like confirm_match, though the condition provides useful guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.